Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
